The Argument for Team Chemistry?

Im also worried about Chemistry and I'm not sure we spent responsibly. I feel we went after too many receivers (we only needed one, it's not like we go four wide, or even three wide for the matter, very often. Maybe Saunders will change that, but I'm not so sure. We also went after Archeletta who is a good player, but the difference in the two salaries, not worth what we had over Ryan Clark.

I hope that all these players are able to play together and come together quickly, but Im not so sure yet.

Like I said, everything looks good on paper - I think it will take five or so games to get everyone in a groove.

We all know Joe. You can't watch a Joe news conference that he does not touch on (or emphasize) such things as "redskin qualities", "core group of Redskins to buiild around", "Redskin, kind of player who'll fight their GUTS OUT". Joe is all about Character, team chemistry, quality of the person, above all else. I don't see this as an issue-Joe Knows

It's already been mentioned that Saunders will use a 3 WR set often so WR depth was critical.

Teams acquire new players every year, we're adding some new guys but it's not a roster overhaul.

Let's not forget this is the 3rd year with this core group of coaches, that goes a long way to promoting team chemistry as well.

Winning solves lots of problems. Losing creates them.

Who among us wouldn't be a team cancer if we were stuck in SF? My guess is that Lloyd will be a freaking boy scout if he is part of a winning organization.

One thing I think that we are forgetting. Is that 3 of the 4 added players have been to the Super Bowl. This brings some experience that we didn't have to much of on the team. So these guys know what it takes to get tot he show.

I mentioned the importance of having team chemistry in a couple of other threads, but I decided to started a new one to get everyone to weigh in on the matter.

Thanks for starting what promises to be an interesting thread.

I've coached boys in baseball, football, and basketball. Keeping the same squad together is far more important in basketball than in the other sports. The more basketball they play together, the better able they are to anticipate and react to each other in the flow of play.

In football, QBs and receivers who spend more time together working on patterns, can make impromptu plays that are similar to basketball passes relying on anticipation and reaction. But, aside from that, football is more about carrying out planned assignments. I think "chemistry" is a relatively minor factor.

I'll tell you what worries me more than chemistry.

I've read about Al Saunders' system at Kansas City. If it's as complicated as it sounds, young Jason Campbell is going to have a full plate. I hope he's up to it.

Thanks for starting what promises to be an interesting thread.

I've coached boys in baseball, football, and basketball. Keeping the same squad together is far more important in basketball than in the other sports. The more basketball they play together, the better able they are to anticipate and react to each other in the flow of play.

In football, QBs and receivers who spend more time together working on patterns, can make impromptu plays that are similar to basketball passes relying on anticipation and reaction. But, aside from that, football is more about carrying out planned assignments. I think "chemistry" is a relatively minor factor.

I'll tell you what worries me more than chemistry.

I've read about Al Saunders' system at Kansas City. If it's as complicated as it sounds, young Jason Campbell is going to have a full plate. I hope he's up to it.

It's not really the timing and the executing of assignments that worries me so much. It's something I mentioned later....can we maintain the hunger. That "intangible" that existed in the lockeroom when we went on the five/six game win streak.

It's not really the timing and the executing of assignments that worries me so much. It's something I mentioned later....can we maintain the hunger. That "intangible" that existed in the lockeroom when we went on the five/six game win streak.

During that streak, their backs were against the wall. Gibbs and Williams work their teams harder than most coaches, and yet they were on the verge of elimination with six games to play. No...you won't re-create that intangible.

I think what you really want is a supremely confident team that doesn't need to get jacked up on emotion in order to play well.

You want a team that expects to win even when all the breaks are going against them. And the only way to do that is to win a bunch of games by having better players executing a better plan.

for the most part, i agree with the general consensus that chemistry cannot be predicted, and will have to be TBA until gametime. the one area that concerns me is having 3 high profile WR's.

Talented WR's are egotistical by nature (somewhat understandably so), and I cant help but think that at least one of the 3 top guys will feel that they arent getting the looks that they deserve, which could spill over into an issue over time. just my $.02, any opinions?